Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Over the Air TV By RabbitEars.Info' started by Trip, Apr 13, 2017.
If you’ve got to rebuild, might as well rebuild for the long haul.
I appreciate that, but where are they going to get the tools to get there?
Some of the money will come from the auction proceeds but they still have to create plans and acquire hardware that may have to be built from scratch rather than acquired second hand as some previous phase's surplus gear.
Since the infrastructure in VI and PR was destroyed, why rebuild on old frequencies that will go away soon.
This does not mean their infrastructure will be replaced sooner, just smarter.
That depends entirely on how much of it was "destroyed".
Remember they're competing with markets that have known where they stood for several months, are ready to submit (or have already) engineering plans and have made contracts with vendors. If they can't get new equipment and they can't get engineering and installers, the reschedule is kind of a hollow gesture.
The stations will be allowed to transition early because they asked to.
The stations themselves saw a benefit to transitioning early and requested it from the FCC. Eighteen of the 20 stations that requested early transition were scheduled to transition in Phase 3, with the other two transitioning in Phase 10. According to the article, "antenna manufacturer and installer, Electronics Research Inc. (ERI) filed a letter with the agency confirming it could support the stations’ early transition without impacting its support of other transitioning stations"(emphasis mine). The stations will have access to funding to cover the portion of the cost that comes from changing channels, which in many cases, requires a new antenna. Why build twice without a fund disbursement on the first build, when you can build once on the new channel with the fund disbursement? An early transition also allows T-Mobile to roll out 600 MHz service earlier, which can help to alleviate "a desperate need for wireless broadband", according to the article. The FCC's statement says the following: “Based on the record, including the letters of support filed by ERI and T-Mobile, we find that an early transition is unlikely to impact other transitioning stations’ access to resources and will provide additional public interest benefits by expediting the deployment of new 600MHz wireless broadband services.”
That's how they get the gubmint to subsidize their rebuild. Nobody should be surprised by that.
Why serve the public interest now when you can put it off for almost a year and have everyone else pay for it?
I'm still not convinced of the "desperate need" and whether or not it would be as "desperate" if the public had access to OTA TV service. Of course it is in T-Mobile's interest to promote their service as "desperately needed" but is the traffic such that existing bandwidth just can't handle the load? The population of Puerto Rico (the entire "state") is just upwards of 3 million or somewhere between that of Chicago and Los Angeles. The population of the USVI is just over 100,000.
Wrong. The government is only subsidizing the costs that would have been incurred as part of the repack. Nothing more.
You don't get it, do you? The stations are off the air. They will need to rebuild. The cost to rebuild now on the pre-transition channel would have included the cost of a transmitter that will be obsolete in 18 months, before which time, they will have to rebuild again, this time on the post-transition channel, and on the public dime. Instead, the stations can avoid incurring the cost of an obsolete transmitter and related costs, and instead, rebuild on the post-transition channel now.
Forgive me for being so harsh, but no one who matters cares what you think. Your cynicism is completely devoid of both supporting facts and reason.
Two of the channels are only moving one channel down. Are they part of the class?
I do get it and that's what frustrates me. This action allows them to put off their return to the air until Thanksgiving!
Chances are much better that by year-end, there will be some surplus equipment becoming available at greatly reduced prices. Damaged towers are going to have to be replaced either way.
Are you suggesting that the stations canceled their plans for recovery after disasters once the repack was a thing?
You're entitled to your opinion, but you must take into consideration the points that I have raised. My arguments have not been devoid of supporting facts. You must recall that I made note of the population of the area and how low the density is compared to our largest markets that are getting along fine without TV band being used for broadband. I suppose I didn't note that the land area of Puerto Rico was more than 11 times that of NYC but I'm sure that a thoughtful person would have figured that out.
The people are being denied service and defending that based on financial hardship on the part of the stations isn't getting their the channels back on the air.
Weird. I didn't know Thanksgiving had been moved to August this year.
Just as I didn't know that full-time broadcast could start before the Phase 1 testing start date but that's the magic of gubmint inspired dates.
The original tweet press release from Chairman Pai made no mention of what "early" meant. Third party reports (TV Technology, Broadcasting and Cable?) offered no new deadlines.
Subsequently I see in document DA 18-35, that "early" means "prior to the start of Phase 1". Further reading indicates that testing is to begin on July 1 and all stations (including any that appear to still be operating and were assigned new frequencies -- WTIN, WSJN, WRVA and WIDP) must have transitioned by the end of August 1st.
For those who are down, they'll stay down until August and for those who are operational and changing frequencies, they've had their transition moved up a week shy of 11 months for some or 23 months earlier for those previously assigned Phase 10.
Looking at TVFool, it appears that there were around 18 antenna sites before the hurricane.
Good job, harshness. You didn't read the FCC Public Notice and made assumptions based on Chaiman Pai's statements. You know what happens when you assume.
Next time, try offering questions instead of opinions.
Getting at authoritative information through questions doesn't seem to yield much. It is almost like you have to trick those who know into offering up what they know.
I asked the owner of my local FOX/NBC affiliate some time ago about the spectrum and losing a station. KLAF-LD NBC 46 is a sister station of KADN-TV 15. KLAF logo and its news department was remodeled into News 15/NBC 15.2. This was their answer below. Can anyone of you figure out what they mean by this. (What I figured is that they LP 46 will get sold or shut down)
This was their answer to my question: Sources from both KADN and Bayou City Broadcasting have confirmed that KLAF-LD will stay on the air, but could go dark in the future and/or if the FCC opens up new filing windows to voluntarily move LPTV stations.
They're waiting for a new, lower frequency to be made available to them (or not). Low power stations and repeaters appear to be more or less in limbo until everything is settled with the full power stations.
Funny - that hasn't been my experience at all. In fact, mine has been quite the opposite.
Kinda reminds me of the story I once heard from the 1970's. A college professor walked into the lecture hall to find that a student had written on the blackboard, "Question authority!", a common cry from the know-it-all college crowd of that day. Upon reading it, he proceeded to write on the blackboard below it, "If authority answers, will you listen?"
I try my best to answer questions to the best of my ability, since I generally have a hand in things that the FCC puts out related to the repack. It's something I feel less willing to do so when someone regularly either ignores my answers, argues with me about them, or simply starts talking without information but acts like it's somehow my fault that he's incorrect.